Obama Proposes High-Speed Rail System For the US 1385
fantomas writes "The BBC reports that 'US President Barack Obama has announced his "vision for high-speed rail" in the country, which would create jobs, ease congestion and save energy.' Can rail work in the land where the car is king? Would you travel on the new high speed lines?"
In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes.
In two words (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell yes!
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Example, I take the bus to work and it drops me pretty close to my building, that works great.
Recently, I changed locations, and now I'm about a 10 minute walk to my building, which is fine too, but some people I rode with drive in now because this new building has a free parking lot. Free parking is not worth 45mins of driving + traffic + burning more gas + milage on my car.
If the train station was more than a few blocks away from peoples' destinations, how many lazy Americans do you think will want to walk that far? I think most would say - F' it, I'll drive in.
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most Americans I know are so lazy they'll circle the parking lot for minutes looking for a place in the first few rows instead of (*gasp*) walk from the far side, or even the middle of the lot.
Add in places like Chicago where it may be life-threateningly cold in the winter or here in Dallas where it's so hot in summer--even in the early morning that just a 10 minute walk will put you at work quite unprofessionally sweaty and there's no way I'm taking the bus that drops off about 10 minutes away though I cannot wait until they finish the rail line that will drop off across the street.
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Interesting)
We've somehow convinced ourselves that "convenient" is better than the alternative.
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow, in which model city do you live? Just about any city I've been to in the USA, I see people circling the parking lot looking for that "perfect spot" close to the entrance. I am also an American, and see this all the time. At the movie theater, at the mall, at the stadium--anywhere.
I always aim for the farthest spots (I enjoy walking and am not in a hurry), so I avoid the contention; but I can see, for example, some person in their car waiting for a little old lady to finish packing her bags in the trunk of her car and pull out so that they can take her parking space--while just a few yards away, there's a bunch of empty spots, which happen to be a bit farther from the door. They'll even honk the horn if the little old lady takes too long! I pressume they are in a hurry.
The funniest thing is that, sometimes, they are still waiting for that perfect spot by the time I park my car in the farther end of the lot, walk in, and reach the entrance.
-dZ.
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
A few blocks? For high-speed rail? High-speed rail is for between cities. Local light and medium duty rail won't get any faster.
Right now, Amtrak has a station in my city, but to get to St. Louis (two hours by car) I have two options by rail. I can go to Chicago (six hours by car, probably 10 by rail) then to St. Louis (nine hours by rail). Alternatively, I can get off the train and onto a bus for over an hour, then back onto a train to continue the trip.
If Amtrak had a rail line from where I live to St. Louis, I could usually live with three or four hours of regular-speed rail to get there cheaply and efficiently. I doubt I'll have high-speed or even regular-speed rail from here, though. They'll put in high-speed rail to some subset of the places already served, and people outside those markets will be stuck with what they have now.
I proposed on the web site the administration set up for proposals a sweeping growth of rail. I think that in order to convince people not to drive, we're going to need the traisn to at least go everywhere the Interstate highways do. Even better would be to ferry the cars along those rails so you can drive as needed once you reach your destination. Paying for the train then having to rent a car because your final destination is too far from the stations is silly, and that's one reason many people just drive the whole way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Even better would be to ferry the cars along those rails so you can drive as needed once you reach your destination."
Exactly! I don't care about high-speed rail. Give me auto trains! Bonus if I can bring a boat/pwc trailer along for an extra fee.
Re:What is it that Amtrak does wrong? (Score:4, Informative)
Rail slower than car? What is it that Amtrak does wrong?
Amtrak have to lease access to rail lines from freight haulers. They own very little track themselves (Northeast corridor and a couple of others, according to teh wiki).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If the train station was more than a few blocks away from peoples' destinations, how many lazy Americans do you think will want to walk that far? I think most would say - F' it, I'll drive in.
Hopefully, the cities will improve bus service to the central station, and the larger ones might invest in light rail. Making the bus cheap to use can help -- e.g. make use of the buses free with the long-distance rail ticket.
Bicycles also work well in combination with trains (full-size ones, or folding ones, as appropriate).
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
Hell with high speed. 99.9978% of americans dont need to go from NY to LA via high speed rail.
They need to get from the suburbs and smaller outlying cities to the major city or nearest city.
how about fixing and replacing the rail system we used to have and need? Most 30 minute commutes could be eliminated by having a simple and useable rail system.
High speed is not needed, How about having REAL public transit? you know the stuff that Ford and GM tried so hard to kill at every chance for the past 100 years...
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree: what these funds really need to be used for heavy-rail transit (i.e. subways/elevated trains in the city) and commuter rail (i.e. regular trains that go back and forth to the suburbs and neighboring cities). Long trips are better served, at least for now, by airlines.
If they really want to spend it on long-haul stuff, they should consider improving freight rail. It's a lot more efficient and environmentally friendly than long-haul trucking, but it's been losing because the government essentially hugely subsidizes the trucking industry by maintaining the highway system, while railroads have to fund maintenance of all their track themselves.
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
This system won't take people from NYC to LA. It's for going from Minneapolis or Madison to Chicago. These are routes where air travel is wasteful (2 hours in the airport waiting for a one hour flight) and rail competes very well. Even with it's relatively slow speed and frequent stops, Amtrak's Empire Builder from the Twin Cities to Chicago is almost always packed. You usually can't get a ticket within a month of travel.
Yes, we need to invest in commuter rail and light rail. Many cities are doing just that. But there is most definitely a place for intercity rail in this country.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Second that; and the north-east has a number of cities spaced 100-200 miles apart, too much for driving comfortably (esp given traffic) and too little for flying sensibly (esp. given security measures and hassle). This is a perfect market for high speed trains. Oklahoma city to Houston or LAX-NYC will not be replaced anytime soon.
DC does not need to support commuter rail (or "beltway" and other city-infrastructure interstates, for that matter!), this should be left to the states or cities they are in. DC sh
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at California: it takes a full 8 to 9 hours to get from the north end of that state to the south end. If they can connect the Bay Area to Los Angeles and make it a 2 or 2.5 hour trip, it'll be a huge boon (HUGE) to everyone from tourists to commuters to business people.
There are fantastic possibilities here, they're not trying to send little Johnny from NY to California by rail.
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree with you (as someone who lives near Chicago).
To add to your post, I also submit that it could be very efficient for crossing the vast stretches of emptiness that are Nebraska, parts of Wyoming and Iowa. I would have no problem visiting places like Colorado, Cheyenne (for the mountains), and other beautiful states if I could just get past the mind numbing 15-17 hour drive through nothingness to get there. Hop on high speed rail and be there in a fraction of the time.
It could significantly grow Chicago's wealth as a city if a few western cities could use Chicago as a hub.
That also assumes the cost is less than flying, or at least competitive if I can have an effective way of getting around when I reach my destination.
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Informative)
Government subsidies you say?
Like all of those FREE ROADS that all of the teamsters get to drive over?
Howabout those FREE AIRPORTS? Those just don't pop out of the ether either.
Then there's the entire air traffic control infastructure. Does AA pay for
that directly as well? Nevermind the fact that "big air" gets bailed out
by the feds because those companies are considered "too big to fail".
First put rail on par with trucking in terms of free infastructure and
let see what happens after that. Doubling the amount of cargo rail lines
would be a handy start.
No (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
When a flight takes about an hour, high speed rail will beat it in both real door-to-door speed and price. This doesn't just help the NE corridor, but allows for lines like Columbus-Chicago-St Louis-Kansas.
Re:On behalf of all Canadians... (Score:5, Funny)
Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrooke?
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Interesting)
I love trains but ... America just seems too big for inter-city travel. Wait 'til you find out how much it costs before you sign up for this.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
too bad
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Informative)
They started to equip container ships with sails again....
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is too big for cross-country travel by train, but it is almost ideal for regional travel by train. The proposed high-speed rail corridors make a lot of sense, and the distances are small enough that taking the train will be faster than driving, and comparable to flying. Rail between NYC and DC, for example, makes a lot of sense. Rail between Denver and Boston, on the other hand, does not make a lot of sense. Most of the proposed regional routes are no longer than typical routes in Europe or east Asia.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if the price of a ticket is the same, and its much quicker than it is now, I'd certainly use a train over flying. But the problem is that unless I WANT a sight seeing vacation, the train (and travel to and from it) just takes way too long.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Being such a large, open land this makes perfect sense."
No. Quite the opposite. Being so large and open is what is going to make it so outrageously expensive that it won't make sense at all.
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly! I mean, you don't see the government getting involved in building airports or the interstate highway system, do you?
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Interesting)
Traveling around Europe in so-called "night trains" is bliss: go to bed in Switzerland, wake up in Holland. Comfort level is not best, yet it gets you to your destination and with no apparent loss of time.
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Interesting)
A+++++ Would ride again. The only downside was having to board at Gare de l'Est, which is a frigging hole with the warm scent of urine provided for no extra charge.
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no doubt that it's better to take the train from DC to NY city than to fly. It's as fast, factoring the dismal security process and where you end up at the end of the trip.
A lot of the 'do trains make sense' depends on the distance, population density, time, cost of train, and cost of flight, which appears to be highly dependent on gas prices. It seems to me that the NE corridor is ripe for such a system. As are other high-population to high-population, limited-distance trips. But, it doesn't make sense to try to replace airlines for cross-country or even most of the way cross-country. Changing planes is a pain the the ass to begin with, but changing trains would be even worse. The autotrain from DC to Orlando makes sense because you just get on, eat, sleep, get off. No changes necessary.
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
How would changing trains be worse then changing planes? I've had to change trains in Japan and its not a difficult thing. Maybe inconvenient if you have to walk to another station but not difficult.
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Interesting)
Oddly enough, the US used to have a robust rail system (at least in the northeast sector).
What happened? Well, the US government started subsidizing roadways. Once the massive interstate highway system was in place, most companies found it cheaper to ship by truck. Trucks didn't have to pay for their infrastructure, and their infrastructure goes to more cities and more directly (you can shortcut *most* requirements to go through a central "hub" and get a moderately straight path to your destination).
Interstate rail simply ceased to be competitive for all but the largest cargo shipments. Without some of the smaller shipping, they took in less money... which led to less maintenance of the rail lines... which meant cutting routes... which led to less income... etc.
If the US had subsidized rail infrastructure as much as they subsidized roadways, we'd probably have good passenger rail from more suburbs to urban centers, as well as between cities. Unfortunately, we don't, because the US didn't subsidize that way.
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Funny)
Fat people?
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
You get on a train in the suburbs (I'm guessing your wife drops you off, or you drive to train depot and park. Once you get to the 'city', how do you get to/from your work site?
Bus, Taxi, or the good old "Model 0 Mark 1" (hoof it).
If you try to walk..what happens when weather is bad?
Check a weather report in the morning.
Dress appropriately for the season. Maybe carry a change of clothes or stash some in the office if you need to.
Stash an umbrella in your backpack/briefcase.
You know... be prepared.
To me, especially living in the climate I do, that is the greatest impediment to any type of mass transit to go to work daily. It would take me much longer to catch and switch busses all over town, to get to my work...not to mention that there is not a bus stop very near either my home or office.
This is because the people who designed your local busing system are morons. If you are commuting to an urban center, the city bus shouldn't take more than 10 minutes to get you where you're going.
What if you need to go to the gym or shop after work on the way home?? How do you live like that without a car...I just have a hard time seeing how you do that and have any resemblance to a normal life and life schedule.
This is where public transportation needs to be viewed as a service instead of a profit-making business. The city/county/state population needs to decide, as a whole, that they WANT and are WILLING TO SUBSIDIZE public transportation such that it isn't only usable in a narrow band from 6:30-8:30am and 4:30-6:30pm with crapass route coverage the rest of the time.
IF they decide this - as most municipalities in Europe have - then the answer to your question is "eh, no big deal, I can take the bus to the gym/grocery store." Or there will be racks on the train/bus such that you can actually bring your bicycle with you (bike 5 min to train, get on train for 20 min, get off train and bike 5 more min).
IF, on the other hand, they treat public transportation as a "business" like most US cities do, then you get exactly what you expect out of a business that has a monopoly on the market and profit-taking interest; they will cut all but the "profitable" routes, leaving zero flexibility and crapass service.
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is because the people who designed your local busing system are morons.
Yea, government bureaucrats. Unfortunately, those same morons will be in charge of designing this new whiz-bang high-speed rail, too, except with more corrupt politicians and contractors involved.
I predict a massive money pit that will yield a few very expensive and unreliable trains, called "high-speed" because they defined it down to 80 MPH, that nobody rides because they're such a hassle.
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Funny)
You die! YOU DIE FROM RAIN!!!
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, you're going to laugh, but my former job pretty much was next to a railroad station. From my home it's a 10-15min walk to the train station. It was actually faster than taking the car. My current job is similar, but it's with buses: a bus stop is at 2 minutes from my home and oddly there is a bus stop at 2 minutes from my office. Frequency of buses is every 20minutes, frequency of trains every hour (more in peaks)
So, yes, usually it's just walking + bus/train.
The sweating is greatly reduced because you're actually doing the walking every day and you're getting used to it. Now granted, I don't work in a suit which would indeed be more uncomfortable. In high summer, I just wear a tshirt (and pants, I promise, I wear pants *grin*). Besides, nobody actually prevents you from taking a fresh tshirt (which is what I did when I occasionally biked to work)
The thing is, where I live (Europe), if you live pretty close to the closest city, you usually have good connections by bus or train. The buses often even have their own lanes and get faster through morning/evening traffic because of that. If you live in a small village, it gets harder but it is possible. Most small villages have a bus going through it at the typical worktimes. A couple in the morning, a couple in the evening. Another alternative for many people is to drive to the closest train station and take the train to the city. The parking next to the train stations are free and you burn less gas. Parking in the city is expensive (think 10€/day if you're lucky, but I don't know for sure, I haven't paid for parking for a whole day in ages)
You go to a gym/shop on the route between your work and home? Besides, if you actually do the walking, you won't need a gym. The trick with going grocery shopping is simple: take one large bag and buy foodstuff for one or two days. The shopping frequency is greater, but your shopping time is reduced (you need few things) and you eat fresher fruits/vegetables. Also, instead of just going to a big mall, you stop at the local butcher, the local bakery... all by foot.
It is entirely possible... Hey, I even have a supermarket reachable by foot... There are even sidewalks *grin* and the bus stops pretty much in front of it. So, going home, I get off a few bus stops earlier, do my shopping and walk home.
The thing is that you have to start thinking differently: if you take the car, the world revolves around your schedule. That is not true anymore when you take public transportation: Instead, you need to plan a bit more carefully. Your workday, really becomes an 8h workday because, hey, you're going to miss the bus if you're still there late. The other aspect is that the infrastructure must be there (and it isn't in most of the US). I think the two are linked, because the US way of life/thinking is very "ego-centered" and this means your own transportation, and hence public transportation is seen as something undesirable and is thus not funded.
Hope that replied your "honest question"....
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Interesting)
You get on a train in the suburbs (I'm guessing your wife drops you off, or you drive to train depot and park. Once you get to the 'city', how do you get to/from your work site?
As you've noted, that's a real problem in the USA. A few of our cities have decent public transportation, but few have really good setups.
Despite your objections, I'll begin by saying that my ideal answer is "the bicycle". First, the facts: it's by far the most efficient transportation ever invented in terms of passengers*distance/energy, speed/cost, speed/maintenance, etc., easy to carry on trains and buses, cheap enough (to buy and to store) to leave one at each end of your commute, very fast for distances under 10km or so, almost surreally safe (cyclist deaths are almost always due to cars, not bikes, and there are stunningly few of even those amongst commuters obeying traffic laws), very healthy, and wonderfully pleasant through a broader range of weather conditions than most people realise--it's no accident that it's frequently a form of recreation in this country. And while you can push and go 20mph for long periods, if you're hot you can cut back and go 10mph for 1/8 the power output, which is now far easier than walking but with better wind cooling. But (as you allude to) bicycle-commuting does require some good city planning--bike lanes, secure (and ideally sheltered) places to park (like cars, but much much cheaper), somewhere to change (and shower in warm, humid climates) when you get to a destination where you don't want to look like a bike commuter, and people who prefer not to be obese (these are in short supply here). And bikes aren't great on snowy or icy roads, although they're not as bad as many noncyclists would expect. Yes, it's impractical in much of the USA right now, but given the political will that could be changed.
Failing that, a local public transportation infrastructure that puts most popular targets within walking distance is quite feasible if there's sufficient demand. New York and Boston are decent in this respect. LA is miserable. It sounds like wherever you live is just as miserable. Change is required, for sure.
Another solution is to have transportation hubs with zipcars or carshare systems, etc., or taxis. With a bit of luck, autonomous cars are within 30 years--this would lower the cost of taxis significantly. But just the cost of parking is more than the cost of a short taxi ride or two every day; it's just that parking costs are frequently hidden or subsidised by businesses who pass the costs along to you.
If you try to walk..what happens when weather is bad?
You've got me there. I've been out in some weather that I'm glad not to have to bike through, but I have never had even a tiny bit of difficulty walking a mile. I think it's a Swedish saying: "There is no bad weather, only bad clothes." Perhaps you could describe the weather problems that make walking difficult? Is it just the humid heat? Or perhaps you live somewhere far more evil than my hometowns (Halifax, Boston, San Francisco, Boulder)?
a bicycle wouldn't cut it. What if you need to go to the gym or shop after work on the way home??
People have been doing this on bikes for a century. Racers spurn fenders and racks and panniers, and only racers are visible in this car-obsessed country. But a rack on your bike will let you carry easily 60 liters of groceries, or gym clothes, or a suit (wrinkle-free, even) without even noticing. Not that you'll need to go to the gym anymore unless you're doing specific training for some other sport.
I just have a hard time seeing how you do that and have any resemblance to a normal life and life schedule.
I suspect that the problem here may be that what we think of as "normal" is not. It's an artifact of a system that relies on heavily subsidised energy and infrastructure. Cars are not "normal"; they're just ubiquito
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Funny)
Most major downtown districts in the country have more than one subway stop. They're usually placed convenient enough that most people can walk between their place of work and the stop quite easily. If it's raining, they have this neat invention called an "umbrella". If it's snowing, there's something else you put on your feet called "boots", and most people wear another thing called a "winter coat".
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Insightful)
That is because your cities were planned around the car.
Urban Europeans will laugh at the ridiculous concept of driving to work in their 1000+ year old cities. On a bad day it could take half the day to drive a stretch that the underground would take you in 15 minutes, followed by half day of looking for a parking spot that would cost you only as much as a night in a hotel.
Europe does have acceptable public transport because it is the only alternative to buldozering the very heart of their cultural heritage to make way for the SUV. (As a general rule, you don't lightly bulldozer something millions of your people gave their lives for over the centuries)
The US doesn't have acceptable public transport because it has never needed it. There is an abundance of space, and most cities lack a pre-auto-age heart. It's doubtful whether a public transport system could really work now. Some cities are so vast and thinly spread that the cost associated with laying down the infrastructure to make every part accessible by public transport would be measured in numbers of Iraq wars. The metropolitan areas of Chicago and New York are about the size of medium sized European countries. Both in population size and in surface area.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I can...IF...
Its gonna be cost analysis decision just like anything else. I, and I would expect most other people, am not going to go out of my way to use it.
So, my airport is 10 mins away. If I have to go an hour to get to the train, and I still will have to go through all the same hassles (security, ticket counter, etc) I am not going to do it.
Other factors come in obviously, if it crazy cheap, but its all just is this advantageous or do I literally and metaphorically want to "ride the train" becau
Free market will kill it (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice idea, but it'll never happen. These kinds of projects are only ever successful when a government steps in and does them properly. The process of doing it with "private enterprise" or a "public-private partnership" always kills anything good that could come out of it. Compare the shinkansen in Japan and the TGV in France to the farce that is privatised railways in Australia for a good example.
Re:Free market will kill it (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice idea, but it'll never happen. These kinds of projects are only ever successful when a government steps in and does them properly.
And given the government's track record with doing things properly, even THAT probably wouldn't work in the US.
Re:Free market will kill it (Score:4, Insightful)
Much of government incompetence has come from the fact that a lot of people in the government believe in the political philosophy that government is no good, and private enterprise should do everything. When the people in charge of the government believe that government is incompetent, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The fact is, even in the United States the government is capable of doing a lot of things very well that the private sector simply can't or won't do. However, we've been so overtaken by this notion that government can do nothing right that we give up on government and starve it of all its resources, thereby assuring that government will not be able to do anything right.
Heard of Amtrak? (Score:5, Insightful)
Amtrak has dragged it's feet on restoring the Sunset line east of New Orleans for over 3 years! Keep in mind that Amtrak now gets $2.6 BILLION [latimes.com] annually.
CSX confirmed that all track repairs had been completed in mid-2006.
Believe me, I'm heading back to Houston from Tallahassee for Mother's Day and I'd love to grab a ride on sunset, but it looks like another airport shake-n-dance. Amtrak has 3 more months to offer a "plan" to restore service...wanna bet that no one ever asks for this plan?
A government controlled-business does not make it some magical, ne'er-do-bad business.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The sad thing is, the Amtrak fare would likely have been more expensive than flying with a discount airline (e.g. AirTran) anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Free market will kill it (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes I agree its not exactly as exciting. The Koreans also totally beat it with 350 km/h trains and they already have them working just like Japan etc... This 150MPH train system is years from being a reality. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_Train_Express [wikipedia.org] This idea could be so much more. Considering the size of America and modern engineering methods, the proposed speeds for this system already fall way below existing trains like the Shinkansen. (I had to look it up, I remember many years ago the so called at the time Bullet Trains were already fast and they are old).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen [wikipedia.org]
Surely America can aspire to build something world class rather than average. Other countries are already doing more. America has the knowledge and engineering capabilities, it just fails in the management will to do something impressive and would sooner spend vast sums of money on proping up corrupt banks and their rich directors etc..
I'm disappointed rather than exciting by this news. It could have achieved so much more. In some ways it feels like a lost oppotunity that could so easily have really impressed and create something truely useful.
Re:Free market will kill it (Score:4, Insightful)
You are massively underestimating the size of the US. A system like one in Japan or Korea is simply impossible, the resources don't exist.
You'd be better off copying France or something.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who cares about world-class speed? How about something that actually gets me from where I live to the cities I want to get to without going through Chicago, which is six hours away even by car? I live within minutes of an Interstate that can get me onto a vast 70-mph network. I live on a spur of rail that only goes one direction from here. The number of connections on a network makes as much or more difference than the speed of any individual link.
More details at White House website (Score:5, Informative)
Here [whitehouse.gov].
Absolutely... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Absolutely... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Absolutely not! (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you not think that roads enjoy the same subsidt transit does? ALL transportation is subsidized and that's a necessary thing because it's a public good.
I like rail! Great mass transit in Europe (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally I like rail.. the bad part however is it will cost ALOT.. and Amtrak isn't exactly doing a 'great' job thus far.
Will it create jobs? Absolutely.. will it lower congestion at airports, absolutely..
Will it work as a mass-transit system (be sustainable, profitable, used): I'm willing to find out, but it ends up horribly mismanaged and failing or inaccessible because of it; I'm gonna slap someone.
Re:I like rail! Great mass transit in Europe (Score:5, Informative)
Why do you think that's automatically a 'pork barrel' scheme?
Rail systems are absolutely superb in European countries (very often it's FASTER to take a train then fly by plane).
USA could use something like this.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's because the destinations are very often so much closer together. For example, London and Paris are about 214 miles (345 km for you Europeans) apart, which is exactly the same distance from Atlanta, GA to Charlotte, NC -- just one of the links in the "Southeast Corridor" route mentioned in the article. And nobody really wants to go just from Atlanta to Charlotte; a lot of them would really be trying to get to points much
Major problem with your example (Score:3, Insightful)
Europe's population is FAR more evenly distributed than the US, where the majority of the population is clustered around large urban centers (cities).
In large urban areas, high speed rail is essentially meaningless. Commuter rail is more important and is going to go nowhere near 150 mph.
In the NE United States it MIGHT make a difference, as the population there is fairly tightly packed in the BosWash area.
In the Western US, it's simply faster and more economical (barring stupidly huge subsidies) to take a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It includes the word "Amtrak". Also, whenever you spend billions of dollars of someone else's money, you're likely to find waste, corruption and inefficiency even if it wasn't planned that way from the beginning. While technically it's not always true that "where there's smoke, there's fire" it's still pretty likely.
I'm a rail enthusiast; I really want it to work. Rail has many advantages, but it's hard to make it economically viable. (It wo
Re:I like rail! Great mass transit in Europe (Score:5, Insightful)
So if I look around the world, I will find a direct correlation between taxes and unemployment? Because I don't see it.
Perhaps if I pick a single country and look through history? There does seem to be one, but it's where government spending made jobs (such as the new deal and WWII).
On what planet does the presence of concentrated wealth mean that jobs will be made. I don't see it at all. Companies will continue to spend as little on employment as possible to make their revenue streams look as good as possible, because the people who make the decisions (executives and stock-holders) are directly tied, not even to the long-term survival of the company, but rather to the stock value... wich is from the earnings report... which is most effected in the sort-term by reducing costs (like employees).
Re:I like rail! Great mass transit in Europe (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, one of the reasons that America has such a poor public transport system is because 'wealth creating' companies such as GM bought them and shut them down. God forbid the government try to undo some of the damage caused by decades of corporate greed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the funny things, Unions, if you want to be a member, well, you are free to sign up for it.
Yeah... you're paying the dues anyway... whether you're a member or not.
works in germany (Score:5, Informative)
Re:works in germany (Score:4, Insightful)
You also have the distance problem.
When I used to travel a lot a train never would have been an option. The distances where all too great for rail or I doubt that the train would have gone to where I needed to go.
The only a few places in the US I can see it working.
The North East corridor. Boston/New York/Philly/DC, San Diego/LA/SF and maybe up to Portland and Seattle, Dallas/Houston, and maybe Miami up to Palm Beach, Orlando, Tampa and that is a big maybe.
Re:Germany's cities are much closer together. (Score:5, Interesting)
And how much money have the various airlines received from the Fed?
Re:Germany's cities are much closer together. (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at the map of planned routes in the TFA. They are not that long, and the whole network will be shorter than railway network in Germany or France.
So no, "USA is large" argument does not work here.
Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
The great myth is that this kind of FUD has existed for so long.
What about when I get there? (Score:5, Insightful)
High speed inter-city rail means that when I get to my destination I have to rely on public transportation (not very efficient in most US cities), or rent a car.
If I'm renting a car, this doesn't reduce congestion. The congestion is in the cities themselves, not between them. Also, the car rental costs money. I doubt it will be cheaper than driving.
I'd love to see rail as a replacement for flying, but I doubt it will be fast enough.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, and do you now fly with your car in a baggage section of a plane?
Fast railways are great for distances like 400-600km (they are too big to comfortably drive by car and too small for planes).
Bullet Trains (Score:4, Interesting)
Give me something at least resembles the Shinkansen and I'll ride it.
Obligitory (Score:5, Funny)
But the economy's still all cracked and broken!
Sorry guys, Obama's spoken!
Monorail... Monorail... Monorail!
its about population density (Score:4, Interesting)
rail is king is japan and europe because these places are so much more dense population wise than the usa. however, this is on average. rail can be king in the usa in dense areas like california, and the northeast. rail doesn't make sense in kansas or nebraska. still, a high speed rail link between major urban centers has some value. fast enough, and they can compete well with air travel. it will be very expensive to set up, but once the infrastructure is in place, its nothing but gravy savings
even with all of that considered, the usa still has to look beyond the automobile in an age of ever increasing energy insecurity, and rail and nuclear are neglected and unsexy but utterly solid alternatives to oil funded geopolitical problems and oil fueled atmospheric degeneration: never mind the CO2, air quality in our cities is a valid reason to go to more rail. when you fill up your SUV, you fund russian neoimperialism, you fund islamic fundamentalism, you fund trolls like chavez in venezuela. who funds the enemies of the usa in this world? soccer moms do. this is an insanity that has to end, and if it means we ride more trains, then its a no brainer
Cost (Score:4, Insightful)
The only big highspeed I know of is the Acela, which goes from NYC to Boston or D.C.
The price: $90 each way, no wifi.
Or you can take a bus for $20 that has Wifi.
I hear the Acela is nice, but I'd rather buy a DS for my bus ride, and i'd still save money.
Totally (Score:4, Informative)
Heck yeah. Why wouldn't I? I love the train.
Bring it. I don't even care if they're not such high-speed trains. (Remember the silly claims about the Acela so-called high-speed trains in the Northeast corridor? Laughable. I'll just take the regular trains that get there ten minutes later and cost half the price.)
All I want is more connections. If I could take the train to work I would. Even transferring to a local bus would work for me. Presto: I now have an extra couple of hours per day for reading, studying, whatever I want. My commute is just wasted time.
We already have rail (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember Amtrack anyone? The giant government boondoggle that loses money every year?
What makes anyone think that Amtrack:TNG is going to be a better idea? It's going to be a huge buildout expense, disrupt many communities, and in the end will still be slower than airline travel.
If you want something visionary, how about supporting large scale consumer adoption of small regional airports and new, small advanced planes that take far fewer people but connect small airports all over with mass transit in each city? It's like the dream of the flying car but with practicality behind it and yields a lot more flexibility.
Re:We already have rail (Score:4, Informative)
We spend 40 billion a year in federal funds on the highway system. Amtrak's deficit is one billion per year. I think someone has the crazy idea that providing more funds for Amtrak may make it more solvent, if it can provide better and faster service to more areas.
We're still paying for the dismantling of mass transit systems in the 50s, when car, oil, and tire companies bought and dismantled local transit systems because they couldn't compete with them. It's the same mentality behind all of the anti-medicare propaganda. For profit companies receive government subsidies to provide medicare benefits that the government could provide, simply because they have lobbyists, and all of the sudden it's "unfair" to have a government provide a service that corporations have the "right" to make profits on.
Air travel will never be as cost effective as rail, especially when you consider how unaffordable it is when there are spikes in oil prices. The TGV in France is all electric, powered by their nuclear infrastructure, allowing them to the same reasonable rates year after year. A high speed electric rail system (I've not yet read about the Obama plan) would provide a much better solution than increasing air traffic with thousands of smaller planes that are not nearly as efficient or energy independent as electric rail.
and the federal highway system....makes money? (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember Amtrack anyone? The giant government boondoggle that loses money every year?
I suppose the Federal highway system makes money? No. It costs us several hundred billion dollars a year.
How about the airline industry, which has been a bailout baby for decades?
If it's affordable, I would LOVE it. (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate owning a car. Cars are a pain in the ass. They burn fuel, need repairs, require me to get them inspected, cost tons of money to clean, dirty easily, have to be parked, etc.
I have been to nearly every state in the U.S. either by car or by plane. I've crossed the country four times from end to end by road. In nearly every one of these cases, rail would have been my first choice, but Amtrak always costs significantly more than plane or car.
I LOVE the rail systems in Europe. I LOVE the relaxation, the space, the reasonable air and relaxed rules (unlike plane travel) and the fact that I get to see lots of places without having to be stuck in traffic in them. It's damn nice to go by rail.
Within cities, I love commuter and transit rail systems. I took the BART when I lived in San Francisco and I took the TRAX when I lived in Salt Lake City and I took the TriMet when I lived in Portland and I took the El when I lived in Chicago and I now use the MTA Subway system heavily in NYC.
I love, love, love rail and it would be a dream come true if someone at the top of this country could put together a working rail system that's affordable between major cities in the way that Europe's rail system is.
If the price can even match the actual purchase price of air travel, I'd take rail instead at least 75% of the time.
If rail ends up being 2x or 3x more than air, as it has been, though, I'll still end up driving or flying. Right now in the U.S. long-distance and inter-city train is a luxury mode of transportation.
Can't mix freight and passenger railways (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama's plan simply will not work because he plans to mix freight and passenger rail routes. I would not call the examples in Japan and France a _financial_ success, but they are indeed impressive technologically. However, neither of those systems would work if they did not dedicate their tracks to passenger transportation. Freight would slow everything down dramatically.
Yes you can, but remember scope and context (Score:4, Informative)
Yes you can, but you need to keep both the scope and the context mind.
Regarding scope: high-speed rail is mostly interesting for journeys in the 50-400 mile range; for shorter journeys, the many stops would bring down the average speed too much, and for longer journeys a single-hop plane transfer is faster.
I regularly travel the high-speed net in Europe, and I love it: No of that checking-in business; I get to the station 10 minutes before the train leaves, sit down on my reserved seat, and soon I am speeding through Southern Germany at 200 mph. Still, a ~400 mile journey (case in point: Zurich-Aachen) takes me 6 hours downtown to downtown. The main reasons for that slow ~70 mph average are slow links in Switzerland, and the relatively high number of stops in densely populated Germany. Still, this is 70 mph average, at (when planned somewhat in advance) EUR 120 for a return ticket.
Now, in the US, the SF-LA corridor and the East-cost are excellent choices for such a network. Especially the SF-LA link could do with only a few stops (LA, Bakersfield, Fresno, (Stockton), San Jose, SF, say), so one could push for >80 mph average. This would bring down travel time from _downtown_ LA to _downtown_ SF to 5 hours. Such a journey would be the efficiency limit for a fast train though, since there is a good flight here. Perhaps LA-Bakersfield (~120 miles) in an hour would be a better example.
The thing to remember though, and that bring me to the "context" part of the title, is that high-speed rail cannot exist on its own. Although the connections for larger distances already exist (planes), one definitely needs connections to shorter-distance transport modalities. Examples are fast commuter train for a metropolitan area (relatively high number of stops, but fast acceleration and deceleration), tram/bus networks in the city (and _adaptations_ to the city for that, so that trams and busses are never in traffic jams, etc.). Not having this latter modality leaves you with a "last mile" problem. If you cannot get to the station fast, often, and safe, you won't use your high-speed train, and you could hardly be blamed for that.
Depends on 3 things (Score:3, Insightful)
If I could take high speed rail back home to visit (about 1,100 miles) instead of driving or flying I would, assuming there was a route and it didn't cost more or take longer than driving.
Great to have, impossible to build? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unquestionably a modern, high-speed rail system connecting major cities would be a wonderful thing to have. But are we even capable of such massive, national projects anymore? Especially with a government that basically dances to the tune of big labor unions?
Imagine Boston's "Big Dig" project to submerge I-95 through that city, with all its corruption, delays and cost overruns -- times a thousand. Hell, times a million. That's what it would be like to build a national high-speed rail system in the U.S. It would be a complete clusterfuck.
Truly I say unto you: we'll see the damn Twin Towers rebuilt before anything like this gets done.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't think of the current rail system (Score:3, Insightful)
Note to those comparing on the basis of the current U.S. rail system: don't, because it's crap.
For e.g., Josh proposes linking San Francisco, L.A., Seattle and Portland...well hey, they're already connected. Have been for near a century, by the line / train now called the Coast Starlight. It's a beautiful journey from Seattle to L.A. through all the major (and some not so major) towns on the way, the ride is pleasant, the scenery is incredible...and it takes 26 frickin' hours. (I still prefer that to flying, but I'm in a minority there). That's because it's running on tracks that haven't been upgraded, it feels like, since 1926, using trains from 1963 through stations from 1886. It never gets past sixty miles an hour.
A proper Japanese- or European-style high-speed rail network would do *the whole trip* in, oh, seven or eight hours, maybe. Meaning many of the useful internal trips would be 2-3 hours. That'd be huge.
I would really, really love for the U.S. to build this, and for similar upgrades in Canada. I like to travel and I frickin' hate airlines, it would be so nice to have a pleasant, civilized way to cover this continent.
I'm not too optimistic... (Score:4, Insightful)
In principle I think this is an awesome idea. Whether or not it works out in practice remains to be seen, especially with the way things are done in the US.
In Taiwan, just a few years ago, a high speed rail line was built from Taipei in the north to Kaohsiung in the south, nearly spanning the length of the island. It's done fairly well, almost meeting expectations. It's hurt the domestic airline industry somewhat mainly because the rail line only takes marginally longer to travel the entire distance; it takes a bit over 1 hour versus 45 minutes by plane.
The high speed rail line had a few advantage however. Nearly all of Taiwan's major cities run down the west side of the island where the land is flatter. It makes it easy to reach all the key population centers.
Secondly, unlike the US where Americans are used to having to drive long distances, Taiwan generally feel the 200+ distance is too long to drive. People do it all the time, but to them they might as well be driving from New York to California. And the cities are dense enough that it ends up being a hassle to drive around anyway. When I was in Taipei, for example, they had 2 or 3 cars for every parking spot. It's an exercise in frustration just finding a parking spot, let alone negotiating the dense, hectic traffic. The south is a bit better, but it's still a problem.
Third, many people already took buses or the existing, slower rail line, so the jump to high speed rail was a logical one. The question was if Taiwan, who generally are quite cheap, would be willing to pay a good deal more for a significantly reduced travel time. It turns out they are, but if I recall correctly the high speed rail company did lower rates at some point.
Construction was just beginning when I was living there between 2000 and 2002 and it was open to the public in 2007. The line itself runs just over 200 miles. The total cost was in excess of $15 billion. There's no way in hell we'd see a high speed rail line built that quickly and for that price in the United States.
Take the piece of garbage that passes for a high speed rail line in the northeast, the Acela. It runs on existing rail lines with slight upgrades and they still managed to finish it well behind schedule. The Wikipedia article claims it was a year late, but from my recollection of announcements at the time I'd say it was at least 2 or 3 years late. The Acela has to slow down at every single station it passes, so in my area it's barely going faster than traffic on the highway. All the trains on this line are consistently late, to the point that the scheduled times are more of an identification for the trains than an actual indication of when the trains will arrive. The best part is how every so often a train pulls down the power lines.
And I'm reminded of yet another issue, common courtesy. In Taiwan food isn't permitted on subways and most trains. And people respect those rules. In all the years of riding there I don't recall ever having seen graffiti more than a handful of times and very limited. I never had to worry about sitting in the mess someone left behind. Public bathrooms were always clean both because people weren't slobs but because they were also cleaned on a regular basis. If someone makes a significant mess someone will be by to clean it up in short order.
When is this ever the case in the US? People seem to have no respect for anything, like it's their duty to deface and vandalize. And imagine suggesting to any rider that they should wait 30 minutes, until they get off the train, before they eat. Instead they'll sit there slobbering over their food, making a mess and then have the audacity to leave the garbage sitting under the seat.
My point is that Americans turn public transportation into a miserable experience. Expect this money to be spend poorly and in the end still not provide the sort of experience that the European or Japanese high-speed rail lines provide. And just wait until every last town starts fighting for their own stop on the line. Or
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the point is that this will allow people to work MORE than an hour's drive away from home.
Re:Ride the Rails (Score:5, Insightful)
Traveling by airplane already accomplishes that. The important distinction for high-speed rail is that it would need to be cheaper than airfare, and/or provide other benefits (e.g. the ability to take extra luggage, such as your car, with you).
The sad thing is, as much as I like trains and wish it would, I just don't see that being successful. Even the normal, slow Amtrak fares are often more expensive than discount airfare between the same two cities. I can't imagine any scenario, short of huge subsidies (which would be fine with me, but Congress would never approve it), that would allow an expensive, brand-new system to improve on that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Airfares are cheaper cause they are constantly getting bailed out by the fed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's Bullshit.
Figure the percentage of federal dollars vs fare dollars for each and your head will explode. Even if you assume that the average flight costs ~$100, the 700 million annual passenger flights makes a nice big number:
http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/air_carrier_traffic_statistics/airtraffic/annual/1981_present.html [bts.gov]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course the airlines are getting subsidized -- but so what?!
Travelers don't care why it's cheaper; they just care that it is. The new high-speed rail is going to have to be cheaper, or nobody's going to use it. The government is going to have to subsidize it, or quit subsidizing the airlines, or both, or else it will fail. And I just don't see Congress agreeing to do that.
Re:Ride the Rails (Score:4, Interesting)
How about federally-operated rails with privately-operated, competing railroad companies? You know, like the trucking companies and airlines operate as independent entities unlike Amtrak, but actually have a huge network of infrastructure that can get you places more directly than Amtrak's limited rail system? Build enough rail to enough places, and license more than one company to operate trains on them.
Re:The man is completely devoid of ideas. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well,
I don't know why you need to be so condescending but I can tell you that the railways in the US are pretty ridiculous in terms of speed and improving them could bring big benefits.
For instance, the ACELA between Boston and NY is very slow (more than 3 hours to cover half the distance that the TGV covers in less than 3 hours).
Such a train uses half the energy of a plane, can arrive in the center of the city etc.
The Japanese Shinkansen is even better in some respect as it runs on schedules that are very intense.
Also, you don't need to change everything to achieve that, just some money and political will. The ACELA express is inherently slower (150MPH max instead of 200MPH and more) but that's not the biggest problem. They need to adapt enough tracks along the road to improve the average speed.
This is clearly a very political and complex subject. And bringing it up in the US is really quite innovative and politically risky as your post amply shows.
Re:The USA: Developing Country (Score:5, Informative)
Germany: 357,000 km^2
Japan: 377,000 km^2
Shanghai: 6340 km^2
United States: 9,826,630 km^2
Maglev speed: 300 mph
757 Economical Cruising speed: 530 mph
You figure it out.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been driving 45 minutes one way to work for over a decade & I'd get on a freaking train in a heartbeat if it was fesable for me to get to work by one.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No... Las Vegas is not planned to be incorporated into the high-speed train system. Core Cities are Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Dallas, Oklahoma City, New Orleans, Miami, Orlando, Chicago, Atlanta, Charlotte, Richmond, Washington D.C., Cleveland, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New York City, Buffalo, Boston, and Montreal.
See the map at the bottom of this page [whitehouse.gov].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No... Las Vegas is not planned to be incorporated into the high-speed train system. Core Cities are Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Dallas, Oklahoma City, New Orleans, Miami, Orlando, Chicago, Atlanta, Charlotte, Richmond, Washington D.C., Cleveland, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New York City, Buffalo, Boston, and Montreal.
I think that one of these cities are not like the others. That being said, I would love a high speed rail link from my province to major urban areas in
You left out a few in Ohio (Score:4, Insightful)
Toledo, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Cincinnati are core cities in Ohio on the Chicago Hub line, not just Cleveland. Five dots in Ohio. People never seem to realize that Ohio is actually a pretty highly populated state with six metro areas greater than 650K people. This rail plan is going to be great for my home (but not current) state.
Re:give us wifi (Score:4, Informative)